Miriam Dalli, author. – Madam President, glyphosate, which we are speaking about today and the oral question that we are presenting and the topic that it is focusing on, is the world’s most used herbicide, and obviously the European Union is no exception to this.

The carcinogenity and the genotoxicity of the substance are confirmed by certain studies but denied by others. The fact is, that it is undeniable that there are serious doubts as to the substance’s safety. The Commission keeps on insisting that it arrives to its decisions based on two things: scientific evidence and the rule of law. The issue we are dealing with today goes further. It is about the lack of transparency; it is about questionable scientific reliability and scientific independence. It is about losing public trust and about corporate giants overstepping their authority – and yes, transparency matters.

The glyphosate hazard classification process of the European Commission and its two agencies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), appears to be a good example of how lack of transparency regarding the scientific evidence that underlies important public health decisions can end up eroding public trust and raise serious concerns.

Independent analysis indicates serious flaws in the EFSA and ECHA safety assessments – namely, eight instances where increases in tumours as a response following glyphosate exposure were not included in the assessment by either agency. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which forms part of the World Health Organisation, said that glyphosate was ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.

On the other hand, the Commission is claiming that ECHA and EFSA concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction. No wonder that questions and doubts still exist. Is it too extreme to imagine that there could be an expert panel, financed by corporate giants, who would conclude that available data will not support the conclusion that that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’? How can we be sure of the validity of the conclusions about the safety or otherwise of glyphosate when there is lack of transparency, and when it has been publicly revealed by the latest US court cases that the scientific data provided by the company experts was falsified?

We have to take a strong stand on this issue. Until we know for certain that glyphosate is safe for our citizens and the environment, we cannot allow this substance to be freely sold in the EU market. And this is why we are presenting this Oral Question: we want to understand what steps the Commission is taking to make sure that the decision on the renewal of glyphosate is based on credible and independent scientific findings. We want the Commission to recommend ECHA and EFSA to critically revise the validity of the current studies, and not to propose the approval of glyphosate as long as the scientific uncertainties have not been clarified. We also require the Commission to rapidly ensure an independent review of the classification of glyphosate in relation to hormone disruption, genotoxicity and carcinogenity.

Finally, we want the Commission to promote and support the agricultural sector so that our farmers can move towards glyphosate-free agriculture, and towards alternative sustainable and cost-efficient solutions for pest management. We asked precise questions on behalf of the Environment Committee to the Commission, and we are looking forward to precise detailed answers. Ultimately, people’s right to health and a healthy environment should be our priority at all times.

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am pleased to attend this plenary session to talk about a substance which has generated a great deal of interest and debate, namely glyphosate. I hope that you will allow me a bit of time to insist on this point as it was repeatedly requested by various Members of this House who asked for the debate today, and of course I had slightly different questions compared to those which I received in writing. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to reply as precisely as possible to the specific questions raised by honourable Members.

On the chronology of events: as you know, glyphosate is the most frequently used active substance in herbicide products in Europe as it is has already been on the national markets since 1970s. It was previously subject to national approval processes. Since 1 July 2002, this substance has been approved for use at European Union level after a review assessment. It is currently under evaluation as regards a possible renewal of its approval. This evaluation is done following the procedures laid down in the EU legislation concerning pesticides. This is a very strict legislation which you wisely contributed to put it in place.

In April 2015, in accordance with the legislation, a comprehensive assessment of all available data was carried out by the Rapporteur Member State, Germany. This assessment included both studies that industry legally has to submit and independent peer—reviewed scientific literature. This assessment was then also peer reviewed by all other European Union Member State bodies and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – a lot of bodies together, as you can see.

An agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), also carried out an assessment and concluded, in March 2015, that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ to humans (Classification Group 2a). This is why, taking into account public concern, I asked EFSA to ensure that the IARC assessment was fully considered in the EU peer review of glyphosate.

In November 2015, EFSA concluded, in contrast to IARC, that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans. But the same conclusion was also reached by all – except one – of the regulatory agencies in the European Member States: 27 agencies. In 2016-2017, the same conclusions were also reached by agencies in Japan, New Zealand, Canada and Australia – a lot of agencies worldwide.

In May 2016, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues also reached their conclusions, taking into account the work of IARC, which was only a first step in the WHO assessment. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, even without mentioning tobacco, solar radiation or processed meat – alcoholic beverages are, for instance, classified by IARC in Group 1 as ‘carcinogenic to humans’, contrary to glyphosate. But only glyphosate is high on the agenda in public debates. Does this mean that I should label processed meat or alcoholic beverages as carcinogens, or even ban them? That is an open question.

In 2016, the Commission discussed a possible renewal of the approval of glyphosate with the Member States. Following the divergent opinions between, as I mentioned, IARC and EFSA – and also between different Member States – on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, the Commission took a cautious approach, also in light of legitimate public concern. We also used the precautionary approach and therefore made a proposal to extend the expiry date of glyphosate until 31 December 2017 (at the latest!) to enable the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to deliver its opinion on the hazardous properties of glyphosate based on the proposal from the Rapporteur Member State, namely Germany. In parallel, in April 2016, your House adopted a resolution asking to renew glyphosate for seven years. As always, the Commission was very attentive to this expression of Parliament’s position. We took good note of your support for a renewal of the approval based on scientific assessment conducted in the EU.

Lastly, on 15 March 2017, ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) concluded that glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. In recent weeks various sources have reported on the so—called ‘Monsanto papers’. First, the facts. According to media reports and correspondence sent to the Commission, a US Court ordered the release of documents following a freedom of access to documents request, which you mentioned in your speech.

I will now turn to your first question. You rightly pointed to a very important aspect: ‘in light of public concern, to ensure credible and independent scientific findings’. In this field, as in others, I heard and listened to public concerns and many questions are legitimate and I am happy to provide you once again with answers. From 2014 when I took office, I have indeed received a lot of letters, messages and emails concerning glyphosate, together with a European Citizens’ Initiative registered in January this year, a request for a urine sample last year, and even a citizens’ Monsanto Tribunal. This shows a real picture of different opinions and concerns.

We are working on this. For some people, glyphosate is a symbol of intensive agriculture and strongly linked to GMOs. This debate is broader than glyphosate, but this is why the need to maintain a strong scientific assessment in this context is crucial. We will also always take public concern very much into account. This is why we asked EFSA and ECHA to indicate what impact the allegations, if confirmed, would have on the Agencies’ overall assessment and conclusions on glyphosate.

Both ECHA and EFSA reached the same conclusion. EFSA confirmed that: ‘even if the allegations regarding ghost-writing proved to be true, there would be no impact on the overall assessment as presented in the EFSA Conclusion on glyphosate’. ECHA confirmed that: ‘the information contained in the so—called “Monsanto papers” did not have an impact on the overall assessment as presented in the draft opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) on 15 March 2017’. This is because ‘EU experts had access to the raw data and to the original study reports’ and they produced their own independent conclusions based on the original data and not on another interpretation of it.

In contrast, the articles mentioned were study reviews summarising or substantiating the industry position on glyphosate that had been presented elsewhere. These study reviews were known by all assessing bodies and are not new as they were mentioned in the Declarations of Interests of the participating experts.

In other words, the study reviews have limited weight in the overall scientific assessment of glyphosate and, I quote, ‘would not normally on their own be sufficient for a conclusion to be reached on a harmonised classification’. This answer is from scientific bodies. The statements of both agencies have been available online since last week.

Overall, there is thus broad convergence between the European and international community of scientists on the fact that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, keeping an eye on public opinion and different views around the world. All agencies – in Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the EU – came to the same conclusion and only one agency, IARC, had a different opinion. It was little strange to see that so many scientific bodies agreed but we will ask once again how to move forward, keeping an eye on scientific based arguments.

While individual persons may continue to disagree with this overwhelming convergence of scientific opinions, this cannot call into question the robustness of our system and we should proceed with the renewal of the approval of glyphosate as there is no reason to doubt the evidence-based arguments about the safety of the substance.

Therefore the Commission decided, in light of public concern, to propose a renewal for ten years. In parallel, three very clear recommendations to Member States were adopted last year: first, to ban the co—formulant Tallowamine from glyphosate-based products; second, to minimise use in public parks, public playgrounds and gardens; and, third, to be attentive to the pre-harvest use of glyphosate. Let me also recall that, even if glyphosate is approved at EU level, it is within the responsibility of Member States to authorise plant protection products containing glyphosate at national level and decide on the conditions of use. They of course have the right to ban it because it concerns co-formulants. The Commission is therefore not the only one to decide when it comes to pesticides.

On your second sub-question, on investigation, let me stress that, in the case you refer to, the Commission does not have any proof that the allegations are correct. I am not a lawyer but I know that we have a very thorough assessment. Let me turn now to your second question.

I can confirm that the way in which data and information is provided to the regulatory authorities and shared with the public for consideration of the approval of substances will be examined in the context of the REFIT evaluation of the European Union pesticides legislation. Indeed the Commission is specifically asking the external contractor that will conduct an external study on the preparation of the REFIT evaluation to look into this issue. This is actually reflected in the terms of reference which are publicly available, as is everything we do.

As the REFIT evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation and the fitness check of the General Food Law are still ongoing, it is a little bit too early to make assumptions or consider a different course of action at this stage. However, I would like to stress that the outcome of the fitness check of the General Food Law will also be publicly available, once completed, and the outcome of the REFIT evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation will be presented to this Parliament.

In the meantime, I am aware that Parliament is preparing an own—initiative report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation. The Commission will of course carefully examine this report and its conclusions once it is finalised and will consider this during the preparation of the REFIT evaluation.

I will now turn to your third question. Let me start by first highlighting that the process of examining the claims made by companies to exclude the public release of certain information is, of course, directly managed by EFSA and Member States. Such claims are considered in conjunction with the rules outlined in the Plant Protection Products Regulation and the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice.

In this context, the Court of Justice rulings of November 2016 in relation to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the EU concern two important issues: first, access to confidential information related to the manufacturing and detailed composition of substances, in this case concerning the original approval of glyphosate; and, second, disclosure of studies on substances and formulated products submitted to Member States in the context of product authorisation.

In the first ruling the Court of Justice referred the case back to the General Court and the proceedings before the Court are still pending. As regards the protection of confidentiality and access to information at issue in this case, the Commission is awaiting the outcome. I can assure you that I welcome the initiative to have more clarity in this field. There is no doubt that we need more clarity.

In the second case, the Court of Justice defined information on emissions into the environment with regard to studies submitted for active substances in plant protection and biocidal products. The Commission and the Member States are currently assessing the consequences of this judgment.

I would like to emphasise the following: first, at my request, the companies applying for renewal of the approval of glyphosate made available to Members of Parliament and stakeholders the key studies underlying the assessment of glyphosate in a reading room; and, second, in addition EFSA provided Members of Parliament and stakeholders with access to raw data from a number of key studies, following a request for access to documents. This access is on top of the extensive documentation that had already been made available as part of the standard procedures by EFSA during the peer review of glyphosate.

Therefore, one can only conclude that there has been a particularly high level of transparency in the specific case of glyphosate in the light of public concern. I understand that this might not be enough for some of you in this House and I am also aware that a complaint is about to be lodged with the Court of Justice. Once again, I can only welcome the increased clarity that the Court would give on this matter.

Let me now turn to your fourth and last question. I would like to stress that the Commission, through its research and innovation programmes – such as the Seventh Framework Programme and Horizon 2020 – supports a broad body of research in plant protection to identify new low—risk products and biological control techniques. This is what I highlighted again last week in a very interesting conference in Parliament on biological low—risk pesticides.

Let me stress again that in the Seventh Framework Programme over EUR 100 million was invested by the European Union in cooperative research projects and coordination support actions in the areas of plant protection, plant health, integrated pest management, and risk assessment and diagnostics.

Furthermore, specifically in relation to alternatives to chemical herbicides, a Horizon 2020 initiative, supported by an EU contribution of EUR 7 million, is currently looking at strategies, tools and technologies for sustainable weed management. So, as you will notice, a lot of money has already been invested already in terms of research and development.

With regard to sustainable plant protection more specifically, the need to find alternatives to traditional chemical solutions is also reflected in the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, which aims at reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment, and at promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides.

The Commission audits Member States to monitor implementation of the Directive and also encourages Member States to share best practice, identify challenges and ensure harmonisation. The Commission is also undertaking several actions to increase the availability of low-risk products. These actions include prioritisation of the assessment for the renewal of potentially low-risk substances and amendment of the low-risk criteria to facilitate their identification.

Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, if I have understood the Commissioner well, then everything is fine, everything has been done properly and we can just continue. That is more or less the summary of his 15 minute speech.

That, however, is not really paying attention to the huge scientific debate that has been ongoing on glyphosate from the 1980s onwards, broader than only carcinogenicity – it is broader than that – but secondly and more importantly, it is ignoring the fact that the Monsanto papers show that Monsanto was unduly influencing studies that were being used also, later on, by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). That is a concern and the problem is that EFSA is saying that they used more studies, one that for example the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did not use, but do not have access to it.

So we do not know exactly which studies have been used by EFSA to come to those conclusions. It is lack of transparency, it is lack of trust in these organisations, and we see in the United States that there is undue influence from Monsanto. We want a good investigation by the Commission on this issue, otherwise we will have to do it ourselves.

Julia Reid, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the deadline for the re—approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU is rapidly approaching, and soon a decision must be made on this very important issue. Although I agree that the release of recent confidential documents disclosed to the public in the US are reason for concern, we take the position that glyphosate is one of the few herbicides that our farmers have at their disposal, and compared to earlier products is safer. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, and such products are also used in public and private gardens, as well as in agriculture. However, as much as I would like to see herbicides phased out completely, realistically this is not possible, especially in the UK where we have a very mild, damp climate which is conducive to weed growth. Until an alternative product is found, I believe that we cannot remove a necessary tool from the arsenal of farmers who cultivate vast areas of land. I would, however, like to see Member States give more encouragement and financial help to those farmers that wish to farm organically.

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, decisions involve choice and choice involves consequences, but the issue that I believe we are facing this afternoon is one of public confidence in the decisions that the European Union takes. Two of the issues that I have with what the Commissioner opened with is how can he stand there and make the points he did when the European Union expert body, the European Union Chemicals Agency, this year said it should not be classified as a carcinogen; the WHO conclusion: ‘potentially’ hazardous to human health – not conclusively hazardous to health. We have lots of products out there that are ‘potentially’ hazardous, but we do not ban those. We have to draw a line somewhere in terms of being reasonable.

Some of my colleagues have already highlighted – and others will, I am sure – the issues, the consequences, that will come of banning this particular product, and none of them are very positive for our farmers and for our agricultural business. I have read quite widely issues about protecting wildlife. If the decision to ban this is to protect the environment, I am for it – but not based on the flawed information we have heard.

Richard Ashworth (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that we are asking farmers to meet the challenge of climate change and to provide a growing world population with a reliable food supply. Only productive, competitive agriculture can do that, and the key is safe technology. So the message is absolutely clear: public health is not negotiable, but farmers need every tool in the box. This debate about glyphosate is going to be the first of many future technologies, and those debates have got to bring clarity, otherwise scientists are not going to invest in technology. It has got to bring consistency, otherwise farmers cannot plan their future. And it has got to bring confidence that the food we eat is safe. Any debate in the future about technology like glyphosate has to be balanced and has to be proportionate, and that means, Commissioner, the debate has to be about proven science – not about emotion.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very detailed opening to this debate. I think we owe it to you, Commissioner, to read the detail and study it because there was quite a lot of information in this. I think it is also important to point out, because there seems to be some confusion about what glyphosate is, that it is a weed killer, not a pesticide and I think that is an important point.

Secondly, to those who say we can do without it – hands up those in this Chamber who will go out and weed the fields. Because there are very few of you who will do it. I used to do it as a child, and that is long, long time ago. I think we need to be mindful of the possibilities or the options for farmers who need it. I am looking in the gallery here and when I go into a garden centre anywhere in Europe, I see wall-to-wall glyphosate products because gardeners across Europe use this product.

This is a debate that is worth having. Monsanto, I think, is on trial here and I am happy for Monsanto to be on trial, as is GM technology, but I do think we need to be careful about the other issues and Agencies that are on trial here: the Food Safety Agency and the Chemicals Agency. We do have to have trust in these Agencies. I would be deeply troubled if this Chamber became the authorisation place for any product, but I do believe that this Chamber should be where we debate these issues. And that is why I welcome the debate but I am concerned about some of the comments that have been made.

This is an important part of the technology, as has been said, that farmers use. If I believed that there was a problem, I would call for a ban as well. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is out of step with all of the other Agencies that have looked at this product and we need to acknowledge that. So perhaps Commissioner, when we analyse the information you have given us and follow up, as many of us will, with some questions, there will be greater clarity on this issue. However, I think many of us come to this debate with closed minds; mine is slightly open, to science.

John Stuart Agnew (EFDD). – Mr President, for 40 years, we have been using this material in Britain very successfully. The British authorities were quite happy to pass it for safety under the risk-based assessment. The EU likes to use the hazard-based assessment – but of course anything can be a hazard, such as the salt and pepper we put on our food; it is the degree that counts. The Canadian authorities have crawled all over glyphosate and they cannot find anything wrong with it. And, of course, over these 40 years we have had canaries in the mine – these are the sprayer operators who handle the concentrated material. There would be queues in doctors’ surgeries if there was a problem, but there are not queues in doctors’ surgeries. The Health and Safety Executive in Britain, which looks at accidents on farms, sees far more problems with falling from heights, getting tangled in machinery, drowning in slurry or drowning in grain – exposure to pesticides is way down their list. The World Health Organization says this material is no more carcinogenic than sitting in front of a log fire, cutting human hair, working night shifts, being exposed to dry cleaning fluid or drinking the Argentinian drink ‘mate’. The WHO says that this material is far less carcinogenic than drinking coffee, drinking alcohol or eating processed meat. We are being very silly here.

The burden of proof is obviously on the manufacturers, and they have always got in mind the thalidomide scandal. It now costs EUR 200 million and nine years to get a material through this process – only a large company can afford to do it. The green lobby are determined to kill agriculture.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I have listened to this debate. I heard Miriam Dalli outline the case against glyphosate and I listened to the Commissioner very carefully when he answered. I think that on balance the Commissioner is correct. Because if one reputable agency said glyphosate was safe, then you would be inclined to say: this is an independent agency saying it is safe, so you should go along with it. But when two agencies say it is safe, then I think to actually go against them, and especially to ask for a ban, does not make much sense to me.

I have spoken to many farmers, horticulturists, etc. about this, and they are deeply concerned. Before you talk about any ban, you should have an impact assessment on what the effects are going to be. Are we going to allow the weeds to destroy the village farmers’ crops? The same for the horticulturists, the same for our gardens when glyphosate has been used for many decades and, to all intents and purposes, seems to be safe.

We have, of course, to take public concerns into consideration. We have to allay people’s fears. But we can do so in a practical and logical manner. As the Commissioner pointed out, it is not just European agencies, agencies around the world have said similarly. So I think that this is an overreaction. We certainly have to be careful, we certainly have to be prudent and we have to allay, as I said, people’s fears.

But in relation to Monsanto, they do not own the rights any more. They produce it, there is a company in Ireland that produces it and sells it, and they have been doing it for many years. Are we going to suddenly say: ‘sorry folks, fold up the tent, your business is gone’? That is not the way to go ahead.

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Mr President, I have listened very intently to this debate, and I just want to say that of course we all want a healthy countryside and a good environment for us all to live in; so do our farmers.

No one in this House has a monopoly on virtue in this particular matter. Our farmers are responsible farmers. I represent the East of England, which is a major agricultural sector in the United Kingdom. Our responsible farmers rely on good scientific, evidence—based information for what they are doing. From what I have heard from the Commission this afternoon, that is exactly what we have. I hope that the Commission will bring an end to all the uncertainty on this, and confirm once and for all the authorisation for glyphosate.

It has been very clear: we are hearing repetitions of the same sort of scaremongering, the same things. Listen again to what the Commissioner had to say, look more closely at what he said to us all. So let us put an end to all this nonsense, and let us give certainty to our farmers – our responsible farmers.

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by thanking all the honourable Members because, ladies and gentlemen, you have put a lot of questions on the table but, as you know, I will not be able to address all those questions and to comment as we do not have enough time. However, may I draw your attention to this WHO report which I have here in my hand, because many of you quote the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Here is the IARC report too. I have both reports: from IARC and the WHO joint meeting on pesticide residues.

Two agencies – one and the other – which then decided – because this is the final decision – that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic. When you speak about the WHO, please read all the documents together, otherwise you will repeat the working group and the very active Professor Portier, who was a chair of the working group. I met him and we discussed this together. I was in Lyons, where we had a lot of discussions. I have visited all the agencies – IARC, EFSA – because I am not responsible to judge on science, colleagues, and I do not think all of you can judge on science.

It must be understood that we have our framework of actions and the framework is law. You mentioned the Monsanto papers but it is enshrined in law that Monsanto is obliged to present a study review, because this is enshrined in law. This law was adopted here in this House together with the Council.

I am responsible for following the law because the rule of law is my basic area in which to act and I would like to say to you, very openly, that we have a very precautionary approach, but do not mix up precautionary approach and precautionary principles. We do the same: we have a precautionary approach and then we use the precautionary principle: we ask EFSA, we ask the ECHA for an analysis.

And then nowadays we have all the agencies at EU level. The 28 EU Member State agencies did the same. ECHA did the same, EFSA did the same. That is all, colleagues. Please, then, do not ask me to present another scientific review. I would like to present you with a scientific view that goes into a very detailed explanation but IARC and WHO are not European Union agencies, they are global agencies, but we take those outcomes into account too. Please tell me: how can I act in this situation? My answer is very simple. I would like to follow only plant protection product legislation. Otherwise I will be in a dangerous situation.

OK, I can show you all the materials I have. I have a lot of meetings with my colleagues from the S&D Group. I have a lot of meetings with the Greens. I know very well that you have your own approach. Here is the Monsanto Tribunal paper. Here you can see the urine test. Here you can see seven reasons why we can ban glyphosate.

Colleagues, this is about politics, it is not about science. But I read it very carefully because some write, quite rightly, that it would be good to ban glyphosate because this would give a very good momentum to promoting organic farming. I am not against promoting organic farming but sorry, it is not about science! It is about your political platform! OK, I respect your political platform but I would like to follow the instruments which are in our hands. I know that scientists have a slightly different approach.

Professor Portier has one approach. John Little sent me a letter today and a lot of their working group people are very active discussing this. OK, we will continue those scientific discussions. I welcome those discussions. It would be good to organise scientific debates and move forward, but we must follow our legal obligations, and I would like to say very openly that I am ready to fulfil my legal obligations.

When I started in 2014 I had doubts because I listened to you and I had doubts about our European Union system. Today I would like to say very openly – let me reiterate this – that I firmly believe that the European Union system concerning the approval of active substances to be used in plant protection products is robust, trustworthy and ensures the highest safety standards for human and animal health and the environment. And this is true, colleagues. I spent two and a half years but I would like to say that today I am a big believer in our European Union safety system. Please follow me. I would like to invite you to organise debates and once again address those issues in a more detailed way.

I don’t know who is repeating that I said I can drink glyphosate as a glass of water. Sorry, I never, never, told you such a thing. I would like to mention that glyphosate is, as you know, labelled – this is a hazard classification –as corrosive, causing serious eye damage, hazardous to the environment and toxic to aquatic life, with long-lasting effects. This is on the label. OK, we need to move forward and to see how to manage the situation and how to keep our instruments to guarantee levels – hazard approach, risk approach – and then to fulfil our obligations and of course also finalise our decision. Otherwise it will be very difficult.

Please look, research the consequences of ignoring science and EFSA conclusions in the field of plant health. We now have an entire region infected by Xylella in Puglia. Can you imagine the disaster in Puglia? There is no treatment for this, the only possibility is to remove the trees. Those people who attacked the EFSA proposal to remove those trees did not listen to me – and what is happening today in Puglia? But the scientific advice was clear.

With regard to conclusions about glyphosate, we have today conclusions built by ECHA. Then I have legal obligations, colleagues; six months or until the end of this year. I know that it is only me who will follow the rule of law but I would like to fulfil my obligations.

With regard to the idea to have an inquiry committee, please do it; I will be more than happy to look at your inquiry compared to the Monsanto Papers. Please do it because it will be very good to cooperate with you, and from the Commission side we have no grounds to start with the inquiry procedure but maybe parliamentarians have a bit more space for manoeuvre. Please do it. I will be more than happy to communicate, to coordinate our common knowledge and to present to you the whole picture.

Sorry, friends, but I would like to say that the Commission approach is very clear, based on science, based on precautionary principles. I am a medical doctor, colleagues, and I know how difficult it is to encourage my patients to use medicines in the proper way. You always know how difficult it is to manage medicines but without medicine you have no chance of moving forward.

I know some of you have it in mind to propose glyphosate-free agriculture in the EU. Yes, please do this, please organise a pilot project, encourage farmers to do it; but it is not up to me, it is not up to science. Friends, I am very happy to listen to you very carefully but, sorry, I do not touch all the questions about transparency because I have answers about transparency. I have discussed those issues in a very detailed manner together with EFSA, together with ECHA, together with IARC, together with those working groups and I think we will see possibilities after REFIT. Move forward, but we will do it together. You know, you are also responsible in regard to risk management and risk communication because those messages which are being disseminated today create distrust.

We live in a very difficult society where distrust in science creates a lot of problems. It does not matter what – medicines, vaccinations or plant protection products. Blaming each other is very dangerous. I would be happy to be the scapegoat, the bad guy, but I count on my teams, I count on DG SANTE, I count on our specialists, I count on our scientists around the world – a lot of scientific communities which presented a common picture. And only a few create a lot of problems. Sorry, friends, I would be more than happy to move forward together with you in responding to your questions, but I trust in science.